Standing Committee F

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Hunting Bill

Schedule 2 - The Hunting Tribunal

Amendment proposed [23 January]: No. 211, in 
schedule 2, page 23, line 41, at end insert— 
 '( ) he is free from bias on the issue of hunting with dogs.'.—[Mr. Gray]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

George Stevenson: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following:
 Government amendment No. 317 
 Amendment No. 188, in 
schedule 2, page 24, line 28, leave out from 'he' to 'has' in line 31.
 Amendment No. 176, in 
schedule 2, page 24, line 30, after '(c36))', insert ''but derives no income from any activity associated with hunting wild mammals with dogs.''.
 Amendment No. 301, in 
schedule 2, page 24, line 31, leave out 
 'the welfare of animals or'.
 Amendment No. 189, in 
schedule 2, page 24, line 33, at end insert 
 '; and the Lord Chancellor shall ensure that the panel comprises equal (or approximately equal) numbers of persons with experience of animal welfare and management of land respectively.'.
 Amendment No. 302, in 
schedule 2, page 24, line 33, at end insert— 
 '(3) No one shall be appointed to the panel who has been employed by, or is a member of, an organisation campaigning either for or against hunting with dogs.'
 Amendment No. 314, in 
schedule 2, page 24, line 36, after 'appointment', insert 
 'which the Lord Chancellor shall publish by placing a copy thereof in the Library of the House of Commons'.
 Amendment No. 315, in 
schedule 2, page 24, line 38, after '5', insert 
 'shall hold office for a period of no more than three years and'.
 Amendment No. 208, in 
schedule 2, page 25, line 1, at end insert 
 'as defined by the Bar Council and the Law Society.'.
 Government amendment No. 318.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Would it be possible for the curtains to be lowered? The sun is coming directly into the eyes of many hon. Members, and probably others.

George Stevenson: That is the most interesting point of order that I have heard. I am sure that something can be done about that. The message has got across.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 16.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 317
, in
schedule 2, page 24, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert— 
 '(2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint a person to the panel of members only if the Lord Chancellor thinks that the person has appropriate experience relating to— 
 (a) the welfare of animals, or 
 (b) the management of land.'.—[Alun Michael.] 
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 318, in schedule 1, page 25, line 9, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert 
'ensure that at each sitting the Tribunal consists of either— 
 (a) the President or a member of the panel of chairmen, or 
 (b) the President, or a member of the panel of chairmen, sitting with one member appointed under paragraph 5(2)(a) and one member appointed under paragraph 5(2)(b).'—[Alun Michael.]

Candy Atherton: I beg to move amendment No. 183, in
schedule 2, page 25, line 21, at end insert— 
 '( ) Rules under section 10 must require the Tribunal to give each of the prescribed animal welfare bodies a copy of any document, and to communicate to those bodies any additional information, which it receives from any other person in connection with the proceedings.'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 213, in 
clause 15, page 6, line 7, at end insert— 
 '(3) Regulations made under this section must require the registrar— 
 (a) when inviting a prescribed animal welfare body, pursuant to section 17(2)(a), to make representations, to give the body a copy of the application and any accompanying documents, and 
 (b) on receipt of any additional information from the applicant or applicants, to communicate the information to that body.'.
 Amendment No. 214, in 
clause 26, page 10, line 7, at end insert— 
 '( ) enable the registrar to direct the applicant or applicants to permit representatives of a prescribed animal welfare body to enter and inspect the area to which the application relates and have access to such other relevant information or items in the possession or control of the applicant or applicants (or any of them) as the registrar may specify.'.
 Amendment No. 215, in 
clause 26, page 10, line 8, at end insert— 
 '(3) Regulations made under this section must require the registrar— 
 (a) to invite the prescribed animal welfare bodies (other than the body making an application under section 34) to make representations within a specified period, and to consider any such representations before determining the application; 
 (b) where a body has been so invited, to give it a copy of the application and any accompanying documents; and 
 (c) on receipt of any additional information from any other person, to communicate the information to that body.'. 
Amendment No. 216, in 
clause 43, page 17, line 26, at end insert— 
 '(6A) The clerk of the court (within the meaning of section 141 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980) to which an application is made under subsection (4) shall notify the prescribed animal welfare bodies of the making of the application.'.
 Amendment No. 217, in 
clause 43, page 17, line 31, at end insert 
 'and the prescribed animal welfare bodies'.

Candy Atherton: This is the first amendment that I have moved, so I should declare that I have a Welsh border collie who will be 19 years old in April—[Hon. Members: ''And the name is?''] She is called Bo.
 I live in a lane in St. Day in my constituency, where the Four Burrow hunt kennels are. I am kept awake at night by the sound of the hounds. A constituent who supports hunting tells me that it is the sound of the hounds singing. I have other descriptions for it. I am not yet convinced by the argument that we can license cruelty, so I shall reserve my decision on part 2 until the Bill emerges from Committee. 
 The amendments are probably the easiest to understand of many of those that have been tabled. I would call them WYSIWYG—what you see is what you get. They would ensure that the prescribed animal welfare organisations received all the relevant papers and information as part of the tribunal process and would clarify the information available to those organisations. The Bill makes it clear that they may be involved during an application under clause 15(2)(a) and also during the appeals process under clause 18. Indeed, it explicitly states that the animal welfare body can appeal whenever the registrar grants an application. 
 The prescribed animal welfare body cannot be expected to provide full and detailed documents and information to the tribunal or the registrar without all—I emphasise ''all''—the details relevant to the circumstances of the application. The Bill leaves the provision of this information to the tribunal's discretion. That is inadequate. Amendment No. 183 would ensure that it was a statutory right. 
 Amendment No. 213 entitles the animal welfare body to the documents and any further information. Amendment No. 214 would enable it to enter and inspect the area in question and entitle it to such relevant information as the registrar may specify. To ensure that the animal welfare organisation does an effective job, amendment No. 215 requires the registrar to invite and consider representations made by the body, as well as to provide it with additional information.

James Gray: Will the hon. Lady be kind enough to give us a flavour of which organisations she believes these animal welfare bodies to be?

Candy Atherton: That is not for me to say. It will be made clear further down the road.
 Amendments Nos. 216 and 217 merely require that applications to remove disqualification orders should be notified to the prescribed animal welfare organisations so that they can consider their merits.

Lembit Öpik: I want to understand the hon. Lady's argument. Does she intend the process to be completely even-handed and to ensure that all groups involved on both sides in any assessment should be provided with the same documentation? Or, is she talking only about animal welfare organisations?

Candy Atherton: I am trying to ensure that the animal welfare organisations have access to all the relevant information. That is all that the amendments are intended to ensure. Surely it would be for other amendments to try to ensure that there is an even field.
 I look forward to hearing the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Lembit Öpik: On the basis of the clarification that I just received from the hon. Lady, I am somewhat disappointed. To try to ensure that the legislation is even-handed it seems fairly obvious that, at the very least, the amendments should show a lack of bias towards one side or the other by making sure that both sides have the same documentation. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that there are certain regulations to ensure that something similar happens in a court of law, where both sides are treated equally. In that regard, the amendments seem to run counter to natural justice.

Candy Atherton: The animal welfare organisations are going into the process effectively blind. They will not be making the applications, but they will be expected to comment on them. That is the difference.

Lembit Öpik: Nevertheless, once the dialogue begins, surely it should be the responsibility of the animal welfare organisations also to provide their submissions to the applicants. Otherwise, the
 applicants will depend on the official body to convey information to them at its discretion, while being obliged to provide all their information to the animal welfare organisations.
 If the hon. Lady wants to ensure a complete balance in the accessibility of information, I would be sympathetic, but as the amendments stand they seem to bias the relationship between the tribunal and the animal welfare organisations in favour of the latter. I am sure that on reflection she would not want to give the impression of bias in that direction. I look forward to hearing what she has to say about that.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As the amendments are drafted the legislation will be prejudiced in favour of the so-called animal welfare groups. He calls for a balance to be achieved by ensuring that all the information is also given to those on the other side of the argument. By raising that matter, however, he strikes at the heart of a fundamental misdrafting in the Bill: it is drafted in such a way that there is a presumption that the applicant is on one side and the so-called animal welfare group on the other. The presumption is that those in favour of hunting are the applicants, while the animal welfare groups will be asked to give evidence to the tribunal and the registrar and to argue why the application should not be granted. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the words ''animal welfare''. That is why I asked the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) which groups she believed the animal welfare organisations to be.
 The groups that are in favour of hunting and that gave evidence to the Burns committee and also to the hearings in Portcullis house included the Association of British Dogs and Cats Homes, the Association of British Riding Schools, the British Deer Society, the British Equine Veterinary Association, the Exmoor and District Deer Management Society, the Kennel Club, the National Canine Defence League, the Racehorse Owners Association and a host of others. In other words, a wide variety of organisations that can legitimately be described as animal welfare groups are outspokenly and straightforwardly in favour of hunting. It is inconceivable that they would speak against an application, but they might want to speak to the registrar or the tribunal in support of an application. 
 As the Bill is drafted, there is a presumption that the animal welfare groups will give evidence only against an application. If that is not the case, it is important that the Bill should be amended, as we shall try to do later this morning. As the Bill stands, it is severely prejudicial to the interests of those applying for registration and the hon. Lady's amendments would strengthen that bias. 
 A farmer might make an application. He wishes to hunt on his land and to use dogs—he might want to take them out alone to go coursing. He will have no information or support. He knows about his dogs and what he wants to do—he knows about his application. He has no financial support—we will discuss that later—and no backing of any sort. He has no way of knowing what people elsewhere in the country are doing. He has no means of seeing anyone else's 
 application, or seeing the papers and hearing the arguments put forward by the so-called animal welfare groups. There he is, before the registrar, trying to gain registration absolutely naked as it were. However, under the amendment, every piece of information or paper that that applicant puts forward and every argument that he advances in favour of his application will be passed to the other side—to the people that the hon. Lady and the Bill incorrectly call the ''animal welfare'' groups. How unbalanced would that be?

Rob Marris: If the hon. Gentleman will clarify where in the Bill it states that an animal welfare organisation must necessarily oppose an application that would enlighten me greatly. According to my reading of clause 17, for example, it is theoretically possible that an animal welfare organisation could support an application.

James Gray: I am happy to enlighten the hon. Gentleman for once. He is the lawyer, but I will try to enlighten him. I hope that my reading of the Bill is correct—if it is not, I shall be glad for the Minister to correct my misunderstanding later.
 Clause 18, headed ''Appeal to Tribunal'' states: 
''Where the registrar refuses an application under section 13 or 14 the applicant or applicants may appeal to the Tribunal.'' 
 It continues: 
 ''Where the registrar grants an application under section 13 or 14 a prescribed animal welfare body may appeal to the Tribunal.''
 In other words, if the registrar refuses the application the applicant may appeal, and if he grants it the animal welfare body may appeal. There is a clear presumption that the animal welfare body is appealing against the granting of an application. There is no question about it. The Bill does not include a facility for the animal welfare body to appeal against an application being refused.

Rob Marris: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that an animal welfare organisation might support an application, the registrar might refuse it and the applicant would decide not to appeal but the organisation would want to do so. It is a nonsense. It is up to the applicant to appeal.

James Gray: We will discuss the wider issue later, but we are talking now about the way in which information is passed to one side or the other during the registration and the tribunal procedure. As the Bill is drafted, the information will be passed to the animal welfare group, assuming that it is appealing against registration. If the applicant is appealing because his application has been declined, he has no animal welfare group with him. Under the amendment, the applicant has no right to information about the other side, or to any financial help—we will discuss that later. He has no right to any of the support that the Bill and the amendments would give the so-called animal welfare groups. The Bill is profoundly biased.

Alun Michael: There is a basic misunderstanding in the hon. Gentleman's approach. We are not talking about a trial in which two sides are pitted against each other; it is the testing of an application to find out whether
 approval is appropriate. It is as simple as that and his language is inappropriate.

James Gray: The Minister may well think that my language is inappropriate—I may be exposing a weakness in his beloved Bill.
 Planning is a similar process. There is no way that the body objecting to an application, for example, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which appeals against all sorts of planning applications, would be given all the relevant information while the applicant would not be given information about the CPRE's submission to the planning inspector. 
 The approach in the Bill is not balanced. The Minister does not like the process to be called a trial, or the use of quasi-judicial language, but the truth of the matter is that the registrar and the tribunal are quasi-judicial. They are being asked in an unbiased way to balance the arguments. Under the amendments, the animal welfare groups, which are by definition in clause 18 objecting to the application, are to be given all sorts of information and advantages that the applicant will not be given.

Lembit Öpik: We will discuss clause 18 later. The crucial point is that the prescribed animal welfare bodies are more or less duty bound to maintain a policy of opposition to hunting. That is why the hon. Gentleman can safely assume that the bodies that would be required to be given such information, would necessarily be opposed to hunting.

James Gray: That is the point. As the Bill is drafted, it is necessary for the so-called animal welfare bodies to object to the application. No clause in the Bill would allow them to speak in favour of an application, or to have the same information as the objectors.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate in which part of the Bill the animal welfare bodies are forbidden from speaking in favour of an application?

James Gray: I refer the Minister to page 7, line 36, clause 18—clause 19 is similar. I shall read out clause 18(1) in case he has not been listening:
''Where the registrar refuses an application . . . the applicant or applicants may appeal to the Tribunal''.
 Clause 18(2) states: 
''Where the registrar grants an application . . . a prescribed animal welfare body may appeal to the Tribunal.''
 Neither the provisions in the Bill nor the hon. Lady's amendments state that, ''Where the registrar refuses an application an animal welfare body may appeal to the tribunal.'' There is no provision for an animal welfare body to appeal against the refusal of an application.

Alun Michael: First, the hon. Gentleman mistakes the nature of the process—the fallacy of his argument was exposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). It is for the applicant to appeal if they want to pursue the application. I repeat my question: where does it say that an animal welfare organisation must oppose an application?

James Gray: We are discussing the information—

Alun Michael: Nowhere.

James Gray: From a sedentary position, the Minister chants, ''Nowhere''. He is right to say that if applicants apply to be registered and the registrar turns them down, it is, of course, their primary duty to appeal. Does he accept that there may well be circumstances in which an animal welfare group—I am talking about bodies that I would describe as animal welfare groups and I read out some names a moment ago—would want to appeal on behalf of an applicant, which is a reasonable thing to seek do? In those circumstances, an animal welfare group appealing against the turning down of an application should be entitled to the same information, facilities and grant from the Government as those who are opposed to hunting and seek to ban it.

John Gummer: Is it not at least conceivable that when an application is refused, the grounds on which it was refused may lead an animal welfare organisation to want the precedent to be looked into properly? Animal welfare bodies should be able to do that when they are on either side, or it will be like appeals against the procedures of the House of Commons being open only to the Labour party.

James Gray: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good if delicate point. Labour Members might like to listen carefully to this. Where an application for registration is turned down on a general principle, one of the organisations that is trying to address that general principle might well want to apply to the tribunal. The same would apply where the tribunal turns down an appeal and the matter could be taken to the High Court on a point of law. Under those circumstances, the Countryside Alliance would, without question, want to take the matter to a court of law, but it would not be given the benefits provided for in the amendments of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne.
 Clause 18 is entirely prejudicial and the hon. Lady's amendments are against the best interests of the applicant. Possibly—we will return to this crucial point under other groups of amendments—what the Minister said in Committee the other day gives a clue as to his thinking. He said: 
''we have listened to animal welfare organisations, but we have also listened to the Countryside Alliance, land managers and farmers.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 16 January 2003; c. 223.]
 Plainly, the Minister believes that there are animal welfare organisations on the one hand and that the Countryside Alliance, land managers and farmers are on the other; they are not animal welfare groups. There is a presumption in the Bill that so-called ''animal welfare groups'' will object to applications, while groups such as the Countryside Alliance, land managers and farmers will apply. The Minister has exposed the nakedness of his argument; the amendments would make the situation worse.

Alun Michael: My sentence showed a much simpler distinction. On the one hand, there were organisations to which the hon. Gentleman has refused to listen; on the other, there was an indication that I was willing to
 listen to those that he listened to and to those that he did not. He ought to get that into his head; we have listened to everybody. He will listen only to those he chooses to listen to.

James Gray: The Minister makes a silly point. I am, of course, ready to listen to all sorts of people.

Alun Michael: Ah, a change!

James Gray: It is not a change at all. Just yesterday, at my initiative—and thanks to the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who is no longer here—I accepted an invitation from the League Against Cruel Sports to visit the deer sanctuary. I have listened to all sorts of people. I was the only MP, aside from the Minister, who attended all of the three-day session in Portcullis house. The right hon. Gentleman has been harsh; it was an unfair accusation.
 The amendments would be severely prejudicial to one group of people—the applicants. They would be severely beneficial to the other group of people—the animal welfare groups that oppose hunting. If that is not the case, the Minister must tell us who the animal welfare groups are. Will they include people who are in favour of hunting?

Peter Luff: I am concerned about another issue, apart from the entirely accurate arguments of my hon. Friend. The tribunals set up a confrontational mechanism and the animal welfare bodies are there to take on the applicants. The amendment is unacceptable in those circumstances. There should be a corresponding amendment to allow the applicant to see everything that comes in writing from the animal welfare body to enable him to judge how he should conduct himself in front of the tribunal.
 Many people in the animal welfare world have links with the animal rights world that go beyond simple animal welfare. The documentation may contain addresses, telephone numbers or other means of identifying individuals that could put them at risk. If the Minister is minded to accept the amendment, he needs to propose suitable amendments—he might do so later, perhaps on Report—to give the tribunal the right to withhold information that it considers could put individuals at risk.

Rob Marris: As is often the case in the Committee, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has a good point, but undercuts it by basing it on a misunderstanding. He has the kernel of a good point—representations made by animal welfare organisations, particularly if they oppose an application, should be made available to the applicants. That would, however, happen anyway under a registrar or tribunal procedure. Otherwise, the disappointed applicant would say, '' I did not get a chance to see representations that were made by an animal welfare organisation. I am going for a judicial review.'' He would be able to get that review on the Wednesbury principles. There is a kernel of truth in what the hon. Gentleman says, but he is misguided.

James Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rob Marris: I will but, with respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening.

James Gray: I want to be absolutely clear. The hon. Gentleman said that if the applicant were not happy, he could go to judicial review. Does he accept that the cost of judicial review will be well beyond most of the average farmers or users of dogs who will be turned down by the registrar?

Rob Marris: My point was finer than that. The applicant may be disappointed, but if the registrar made a decision based on information partly from animal welfare organisations that had not been made available to the applicant, the applicant would be able to go to judicial review; the applicant would win and would get his or her costs.

Peter Luff: In law, the hon. Gentleman is probably right. However, that is a lawyer's view of the way in which the law operates and not a real-world view. In practice, most applicants would be deterred by the cost, time and expense involved. Many of those people are very poor individuals who do not have large sums of money at their disposal to conduct a judicial review and who would be intimidated by the process.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman talks about living in the real world, but the House of Commons is a law-making body and we are making law. What he says might be true of the first applicant in that position—for example, an applicant who did not see the documents from an animal welfare organisation, took the case to a judicial review and won. The second applicant would be unlikely to be in that position because subsequent registrars would say that the decision would be overturned on judicial review. Were that not to be the case, the second applicant would have a cast-iron case and would get their costs right away.

Lembit Öpik: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that a small degree of injustice would be acceptable for the first applicant. Surely he recognises that small differences could make a big impact on the merits of particular cases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) pointed out, many applicants will be individuals, or representatives of small groups, who will not have the means to pay large sums.

Rob Marris: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not suggesting small injustices are acceptable; that is why we have judicial review and the British legal system.
 Secondly, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that animal welfare organisations or bodies must oppose applications as a result of the structure of the Bill. Clause 17(2) states: 
''On receipt of an application the registrar shall . . . invite the prescribed animal welfare bodies to make written representations about the application within a specified period''.
 It does not in any way indicate that those representations must perforce be against that application; they may be in support of it.

James Gray: Which bodies does the hon. Gentleman believe these animal welfare organisations to be?

Rob Marris: That is for the Minister to say later. I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 11, which we have not got to yet.

James Gray: If we are talking about whether those people are in favour of hunting or are seeking to get it stopped, it is important that we have the hon. Gentleman's personal understanding of which groups these are.

Rob Marris: My personal understanding may become clear during our debates on clause 11, but not during this debate.

Alun Michael: The hon. Member for North Wiltshire has made a great to-do about this matter, but it is simple and straightforward. Under clause 17(2)(a), welfare bodies may make representations. There is nothing to say that those must be objections. The arrangement will ensure that the application is properly tested. The Bill is about eradicating cruelty and, clearly, the applicant will be in favour of the activity that he proposes.
 The mechanism that we have provided allows for representations, where appropriate. Those may be against; they may say why an application is not appropriate for registration under the terms of the Bill. Representations may state that certain conditions should apply to ensure that the principle of eradicating cruelty is observed. It may be said that the activity proposed by the applicant is preferable to the alternative, which might be poisoning or something with animal welfare implications. 
 The point is that there is an animal welfare focus in the consideration, which fits well into our discussions about the responsibilities of mankind and the arguments of John Stuart Mill in that regard. The equivalent might be the way in which we ensure that there is a guardian ad litem to ask questions in court from the perspective of the interests of the child. We want to ensure that questions are asked and that, where appropriate, evidence is provided from the perspective of animal welfare. It is for the registrar or the tribunal to be independent, unbiased and objective in considering the evidence from the two sides.

James Gray: Some light is now beginning to be shed on the subject. The Minister is saying that it would be open to any recognised animal welfare group to make representations to the registrar on either side of the argument. Therefore it becomes important that we know what the recognised animal welfare groups are. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has refused to tell us. Will the Minister give the Committee a flavour of the animal welfare groups that he believes will be recognised?

Rob Marris: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I did not refuse to do that; I simply said that I would not do it in the debate on these amendments to schedule 2—[Interruption.]

George Stevenson: Order. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Alun Michael: I can see exactly where the hon. Member for North Wiltshire is coming from. The whole point is to ensure that any designated animal welfare organisation would come to its task prepared to examine the evidence available, and to provide evidence to the registrar and the tribunal, from an
 animal welfare perspective. It is as simple as that—[Hon. Members: ''Who are they?''] It will be for the Secretary of State to designate organisations, and it will be for them to demonstrate their ability to provide the information and evidence to test the application in an objective way that simply considers the activity from an animal welfare perspective.
 That is absolutely clear in the Bill, and we have no need to go further than that at this stage, any more than we do in any other legislation making such provision that comes through the House. I must point out to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that I can remember such questions being asked in connection with a variety of pieces of legislation when I sat on the Opposition Benches where he now sits. In retrospect, those questions seem as inappropriate as his interventions do now.

Lembit Öpik: Is the Minister saying explicitly that the prescribed animal welfare organisations do not necessarily have to embody as a policy the banning of, or opposition to, hunting with dogs?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is right. Indeed, it would be entirely inappropriate for an organisation to come to the registrar or the tribunal from anything other than an objective perspective in examining the scientific and other evidence on the animal welfare considerations involved in the particular circumstances under consideration. The role is clearly defined. I know that it is inappropriate to stretch the comparison too far but, as I have said, in legislation concerning children we have a guardian ad litem, and that does not take away the court's responsibility to be objective; nor indeed, does it mean that that guardian has to resist or argue against any application made to the court. The responsibility is simply to consider the matter from the perspective of the child; in this case, it is to consider the matter from the perspective of animal welfare.
 I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is trying to do, so let me tell him that it will be a requirement for all the information to be available to the animal welfare organisation. In response to other points made during the debate, let me add that it will be equally a requirement that all the information and evidence supplied by the animal welfare organisation be made available to the applicant. If Opposition Members had any other impression I am glad to set their minds at rest, just as I am happy to allay the fear of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne that there might be supplementary evidence or arguments that would not be available. It is absolutely basic that all the information should be out in the open for both sides, so that they are all aware of the evidence on which the tribunal will neutrally and objectively come to a decision. I hope that I will be able to satisfy my hon. Friend on the amendment. I am entirely at one with her on the objective of ensuring that all the information is available and all the procedures are transparent. 
 The rules governing the practice and procedure to be followed in appeals before the tribunal will be made by the Lord Chancellor under clause 10. They will require that all parties to an appeal are provided with 
 all relevant information and documentation received from other parties. That is standard practice for all the Lord Chancellor's tribunals, because it is recognised that an essential requirement of justice is that all parties to a hearing should have full access to the arguments put forward by the other parties. 
 The rules will follow the framework set out in model rules that have been published by the watchdog for tribunals, the Council on Tribunals. My hon. Friend may be aware that it takes a keen interest in ensuring consistent standards across the whole family of tribunals. The rules provide that all parties to an appeal must be provided with all relevant documentation.

James Gray: I am encouraged by what the Minister says. None the less, where does the Bill say that the applicant will be given information about the evidence to be presented by the prescribed animal welfare body?

Alun Michael: I have just explained that rules made by the Lord Chancellor under clause 10 provide for such arrangements. They apply to all participants in a tribunal. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne dealt with some fundamental issues about how tribunals operate. There is no harm in underlining and explicitly stating in the Committee that this tribunal will operate in accordance with the standard practice.
 I agree with the intention of amendment No. 213. It is essential for the interests of justice that the organisation should be able to see and comment on all information in support of the application for the registration, but that will be achieved by the Bill as drafted. Clause 17(2)(a) requires the registrar to 
''invite the prescribed animal welfare bodies to make written representations''
 about each application for registration. Clause 17(2)(b) then requires the registrar to consider those representations. 
 To discharge his duties under clause 17 properly, the registrar must show the prescribed animal welfare bodies the application and any additional information provided by the applicant. That is simply a matter of good and fair justice. The requirement will be made explicit in regulations on the treatment of applications to be made by the Secretary of State under clause 15. I am happy to give that assurance. 
 I am sympathetic to the intention of amendment No. 214 that the prescribed animal welfare body should be able to check the claims made by the application for registration, but the power of entry would be disproportionate. The Bill provides the necessary safeguards for the integrity of the system of registration. 
 Under the proposed power, an applicant could be ordered by the registrar to permit another private individual to enter his or her land as a precondition for considering an application for registration. The powers of entry to private land should not be granted unless there is real justification for infringing the rights to peaceful enjoyment of property. The question is whether such justification is present in this case. 
 The applicant must demonstrate to the registrar that the proposed activity satisfies the two tests of utility and cruelty when undertaken on a specific area of land. To do so, the applicant will have to provide evidence and not simply make assertions about the nature and characteristics of the land, if that is appropriate. The prescribed animal welfare bodies will be shown all the evidence and will be able to comment on and question it. In most cases, it will be clear if the applicant is falsely claiming that the land has unusual characteristics that somehow distinguish it from the neighbouring land. 
 Even if an applicant who gave a false implication about the characteristics of an area were to succeed in wrongly obtaining registration, it would be a simple matter for the prescribed animal welfare bodies to discover that. The Bill already gives inspectors appointed by the prescribed animal welfare bodies the powers to inspect any registered hunting. That is an automatic condition of registration in clauses 27(3) and 28(3). If the inspectors discover that false information has been given to the registrar, the prescribed animal welfare bodies may apply for deregistration under clause 34(1), but the Bill makes it a separate criminal offence knowingly to give false information in an application for registration. That is a powerful reassurance to my hon. Friend and a powerful inhibitor of organisations that might want to misrepresent in an application. 
 It may make sense for a landowner who applies to say that they would be happy to allow the land in question to be viewed. Such openness and transparency would help to convince the tribunal. 
 I assure my hon. Friend that the focus of amendment No. 215 will be achieved by the Bill as drafted. Applications for renewal of registration and for variation of non-automatic conditions will be treated under clauses 25(2) and 34 in exactly the same way as the original applications. The prescribed animal welfare body will be given full information. Similarly, the parties to applications for deregistration will be fully informed of the representations of other parties. That balance runs throughout the operation of the tribunal system, and I am happy to have an opportunity to underline it. 
 On amendment No. 216, clause 43 gives magistrates courts the power to impose a disqualification order prohibiting registration by a person found guilty of an offence under part 1 of the Bill. It provides that the disqualified person may apply to the court for the order to be lifted if a year has passed since it was made. The lifting of a disqualification order is a matter for the magistrates court. 
 The magistrates court is required to notify only the registrar when it makes or lifts a disqualification order under clause 43(8), but the prescribed animal welfare organisations will be invited to make representations on any application to be registered, which may include an application by a person who was previously disqualified. That is the point at which the information is needed. My hon. Friend's concern about people who have previously been disqualified slipping into the system will be dealt with by that means.

Peter Luff: I sense that the Minister is at the end of his speech. He is making a very reassuring speech, for which I am grateful. I am learning much from what he says about how the tribunals will operate. However, I do not believe that he has dealt with the point about excluding sensitive information. It is relevant whether the clause is unamended or amended. I cannot imagine that the situation would arise often, but it may on occasion.

Alun Michael: I take the hon. Gentleman's point and shall reply in detail. I have been focusing on the amendments. His concern is covered by the requirement that relevant information be provided. Sensitive information such as telephone numbers and so on would be protected, as it is in other contexts. Such protection may be necessary in a small number of applications but, where it is relevant, it is catered for in the phraseology of the Bill.

Rob Marris: I wish to direct my right hon. Friend the Minister to his comments before the intervention of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. He said that if someone whose disqualification period had ended applied for registration, another part of the Bill would ensure that interested animal welfare organisations received the information.
 What if an individual whose disqualification period ended sought to return to hunting under a group registration under clause 2? Would that situation be covered? I am concerned that the disqualification might end through the effluxion of time or through an application and that the individual would return to hunting under a group registration without interested parties being made aware of it.

Alun Michael: I am happy to respond to that point. I direct my hon. Friend's attention to the conditions for group registration in clause 28(6), which lists the steps that must be taken by an applicant organisation and which ensures that his concern is dealt with satisfactorily. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.
 The final amendment is No. 217. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne that it would be wrong to impose a requirement on the court to notify prescribed animal welfare organisations of the making or lifting of disqualification orders. It would result in an unnecessary administrative bill and would have implications for a wide range of notifications under other legislation, if we were to apply such a requirement consistently. I can reassure my hon. Friend that, where an order is made, the registrar will take the necessary steps to deregister the hunter concerned under clause 33, without needing to refer the matter to the prescribed animal welfare organisations. The deregistration will be shown on the register and so will be a matter of public record, and open to checking. 
 I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that while she has raised serious and important points about the whole tribunal system and process, the Bill provides for them to be dealt with very clearly.

Candy Atherton: Essentially, these were probing amendments. We have had a most useful debate to clarify the role of tribunals, which might help us as we continue with consideration of the Bill. I am very reassured by my right hon. Friend's comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 - Prescribed animal welfare bodies

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 209, in
clause 11, page 4, line 14, leave out from 'regulations' to end of line 15 and insert 
 'form an animal welfare standing committee comprised of members of— 
 (a) the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and 
 (b) the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare 
 who are free from bias on the issue of hunting with dogs.'.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 309, in 
clause 11, page 4, line 14, after 'more', insert 'recognized charitable'.
 Amendment No. 30, in 
clause 11, page 4, line 15, at end insert 
 'so long as that organisation has no recognised position on the issue of hunting with dogs.'.
 Amendment No. 28, in 
clause 11, page 4, leave out lines 16 and 17.
 Amendment No. 311, in 
clause 11, page 4, line 17, leave out 'or partly'.
 Amendment No. 107, in 
clause 11, page 4, line 17, leave out 'partly' and insert 'mainly'.
 Amendment No. 312, in 
clause 11, page 4, line 17, leave out 'animals' and insert 
 'wild mammals and has never undertaken political campaigning about hunting with dogs'.
 Amendment No. 108, in 
clause 11, page 4, line 17, at end insert 
 'and the body has informed him that it is willing to be prescribed.'.
 Amendment No. 29, in 
clause 11, page 4, line 19, leave out 
 'a prescribed animal welfare body' 
 and insert 
 'the animal welfare standing committee'.
 Amendment No. 63, in 
clause 15, page 6, line 4, leave out 
 'a prescribed animal welfare body' 
 and insert 
 'the animal welfare standing committee'.
 Amendment No. 102, in 
clause 17, page 6, line 41, leave out 'prescribed animal welfare bodies' and insert 'animal welfare standing committee'.
 Amendment No. 103, in 
clause 17, page 7, line 1, leave out 'any of those bodies' and insert 'it'.
 Amendment No. 104, in 
clause 18, page 7, line 36, leave out 
 'a prescribed animal welfare body' 
 and insert 
 'the animal welfare standing committee'.
 Amendment No. 105, in 
clause 19, page 7, line 41, leave out 'prescribed animal welfare bodies' and insert 'animal welfare standing committee'.
 Amendment No. 64, in 
clause 26, page 10, line 7, leave out 
 'a prescribed animal welfare body' 
 and insert 
 'the animal welfare standing committee'.
 Amendment No. 65, in 
clause 27, page 10, line 21, leave out 
 'a prescribed animal welfare body' 
 and insert 
 'the animal welfare standing committee'.
 Amendment No. 66, in 
clause 28, page 10, line 41, leave out 
 'a prescribed animal welfare body' 
 and insert 
 'the animal welfare standing committee'.
 Amendment No. 67, in 
clause 31, page 12, line 4, leave out 
 'the prescribed animal welfare bodies' 
 and insert 
 'the animal welfare standing committee'.
 Amendment No. 68, in 
clause 34, page 13, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'may' and insert 
 'The animal welfare standing committee'.
 Amendment No. 69, in 
clause 35, page 14, line 21, leave out 'prescribed animal welfare bodies' and insert 'animal welfare standing committee'.

James Gray: I shall not speak to all the amendments in detail, because they all, broadly speaking, deal with the same argument. The most important is amendment No. 209. The others are either alternatives to it, additions to it or consequential amendments. It is not quite such a fearsome group as it might at first appear to be.
 The Minister said earlier that the Opposition were making a great to-do about the question of the recognised animal welfare groups. He is right. We are making a great to-do about it because we are concerned about how the system of the registrar and tribunals will work. The Minister has often said that he wants to put the matter to bed, and that he no longer wants the question of hunting with dogs hanging over Parliament. He says that he seeks a settlement that will stand the test of time and be broadly acceptable to both sides of the argument. While we disapprove of, and disagree with, clause 8—which is central to the Bill—we are now discussing precisely how the system will work. 
 The Opposition, like the Minister, are trying to find ways to make the system work as well as possible, and in a way that will be, broadly speaking, acceptable to both sides of the argument. Of course, it will not be acceptable to those who do not obtain registration. Animal welfare groups will not like it when anyone does obtain registration. Particular outcomes will not be acceptable or agreeable to certain people. None the less, we are aiming for a system that will be, broadly speaking, acceptable to all those who must use it. We must respect the courts. If the public do not respect the courts, the rule of law collapses. It is important that the system introduced in the Bill should achieve broad acceptance in the nation. We believe that at the moment it will not do so. 
 Central to our belief is the question of the precise role and nature of the prescribed animal welfare bodies. The term appears throughout the Bill, but so far what they are has been a matter of extreme vagueness. I challenged two Back-Bench Labour Members—and, indeed, the Minister—to provide us with some flavour or understanding of what those bodies are. It seems to Conservative Members that a number of perfectly legitimate organisations, such as the Kennel Club, and others from the list that I read out a moment ago, could quite sensibly be described as animal welfare bodies. Such bodies gave evidence to the Burns committee and in Portcullis house as animal welfare bodies. However, they, of course, would speak in support of the applicant. 
 It seems to us that the Bill is drafted with a presumption that the so-called animal welfare bodies will necessarily speak against the applicants. We find that unacceptable. That is why we want the Minister to make it absolutely clear which animal welfare bodies will be involved. One of the amendments would have the effect of including the names of the animal welfare bodies in the Bill. That seems only reasonable. 
 Our suspicion is that all kinds of organisations will become recognised animal welfare bodies, even though they are not really animal welfare bodies at all. I suspect that the League Against Cruel Sports, for example, is not an animal welfare body in any real sense. It has campaigned for many years to ban all kinds of hunting with dogs and it would probably claim that it is an animal welfare body, but I do not believe that it is. Even more puzzling is an organisation called the International Fund for Animal Welfare. From the name, one has to presume that IFAW is an animal welfare organisation; it would be odd if it were not, or, at least, the name would be rather misleading. However, one of the main purposes of IFAW is to campaign against hunting with dogs. 
 The same could be said, to a very real degree, of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The RSPCA used to be a wonderful organisation that looked after cats and dogs in the locality; nowadays, its primary interest and primary spend relate to the high profile campaign to end hunting with dogs. Tens of thousands of pounds are spent on whole-page advertisements in the newspapers as part of a straightforward and very political campaign to ban hunting with dogs. Is the RSPCA 
 an animal welfare organisation, or is it a political campaigning organisation? Of course, it has an animal welfare role, but nowadays most of its money is linked to being a political campaigning organisation. That makes up most of its profile.

Rob Marris: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the RSPCA is perpetrating a fraud on the charity commissioners? If it were merely a political campaigning organisation, it would not be eligible for the charitable status that it continues to hold with the support of Her Majesty.

James Gray: I am certainly not suggesting that the RSPCA is perpetrating any kind of fraud and it would be quite wrong if I were to do so. However, the RSPCA's charitable status certainly ought to be considered from time to time. A body is not allowed to be a charity if it has party political allegiances. If a body makes an argument in favour of party political matters, it stops being a charity. As I understand it, the RSPCA escapes the net and maintains its charitable status because there are two or three Conservative Members of Parliament who are opposed to hunting and two or three Labour Members of Parliament who are in favour of it and therefore it is not, technically speaking, a party political argument, despite the fact that the bulk of people in favour of hunting tend to be Conservative and the bulk of people opposed to it tend to be Labour. The RSPCA is very close indeed to becoming a political campaigning organisation and presumably its standing could be questioned as a result.

Andrew George: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I do not want to waste too much time discussing the RSPCA.

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point. This is not a debate about the charitable status of one organisation or another; it is about prescribing the organisations. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George)?

James Gray: No, Mr. Stevenson. I do not want to waste too much time on this group of amendments. The amendments are intended to tease out which animal welfare bodies will be prescribed by the Government. I cited the RSPCA, the LACS, IFAW and lots of other similar organisations as examples of the kinds of people that the Conservatives do not believe to be sensible animal welfare organisations, in so far as their campaigning against hunting is concerned.
 If the clause and the Bill were to become law in the present format, it would be important to come up with entirely unbiased organisations, who have no previous record on the subject of campaigning in favour or against hunting and who would be dispassionate advisers to the registrar and the tribunal. That is why amendment No. 209 suggests the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, which are, by definition, dispassionate organisations and have no 
 axe to grind on either side of the argument. They would be seen to be, as well as being, entirely free from bias. 
 Under the clause, Parliament is being asked to give the Secretary of State the power to appoint to a position of absolutely key importance in the working of the legislation any body that 
''he thinks . . . is wholly or partly concerned with the protection . . . of animals''.
 There is no restriction on which bodies may be prescribed. The provision relies totally on the subjective view of a particular Secretary of State. The present Secretary of State may think that IFAW should be a prescribed animal welfare body, but subsequent Secretaries of State may wish to prescribe other bodies. When I become Secretary of State—a day to which I greatly look forward—I will take great pleasure in prescribing the Countryside Alliance if, and only if, the Government prescribe the League Against Cruel Sports, IFAW and other anti-hunting bodies. It would be as wrong to prescribe the Countryside Alliance as it would be to prescribe IFAW, and I seek the Minister's assurance that he will take note of that.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: I will not just now, because I have been quite generous with the hon. Gentleman. If he will forgive me, I want to get through this part of the Bill so that we can crack on with the rest of it. We have an awful lot to do today, and there should perhaps not be too much arguing backwards and forwards. We should get the arguments over with and on the record.
 The drafting of the clause is so loose and imprecise that we do not know what 
''wholly or party concerned with''
 means. Who will decide? The Secretary of State? Almost any public body that one cares to mention could describe itself as wholly or partly concerned with animal welfare. Such bodies include the General Synod of the Church of England, the British Horse Society, the National Canine Defence League, the Cats Protection League, the International League for the Protection of Horses, the Kennel Club and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. There is an endless list of organisations that could say that they were wholly or partly concerned with animal welfare. 
 What does ''concerned with'' mean in this context? The Roman Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales has a real concern for animal welfare and is always passing motions on the issue. Would that body come under the definition of animal welfare groups? Of course not; that is not the intention behind the Bill. However, such bodies might qualify given the way in which the clause is drafted. That once again highlights the absurd way in which the Bill is drafted. We have ruled ourselves out from deciding what is cruel and what has utility, but so-called animal welfare groups will be called on to do so. The provision before us is absurd, and we cannot possibly allow it to stand. 
 The purpose of the clause and of later amendments to it is simply to appease anti-hunting groups such as the League Against Cruel Sports and IFAW. In 
 tabling our amendments, we seek guidance from the Minister as to which animal welfare groups will be prescribed, because he signally failed to tell us during our previous discussion. Bearing in mind Pepper v. Hart, will he tell us which groups will be prescribed and which will be ruled out? Will he rule out IFAW, the Political Animal Lobby, the League Against Cruel Sports and other organisations whose primary purpose is not animal welfare but campaigning against hunting with hounds? 
 We will be reassured to a degree if he rules such organisations out, gives us a flavour of those that he has in mind and gives particular consideration to the two that we have mentioned, although others may come into the same category. However, if he shelters behind the fact that such groups will be prescribed by the Secretary of State and appointed by statutory instrument, and he refuses to tell us which bodies he, as an individual, thinks should be prescribed, the true nakedness of his argument will be exposed.

Rob Marris: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 107 and Nos. 108, which are self-explanatory. Amendment No. 107 would stop the Secretary of State nominating an organisation that merely had a passing interest in animal welfare. Amendment No. 108 would ensure that any nominated organisation was actually willing to be nominated and therefore bombarded with bits of paper relating to applications.
 Turning to amendment No. 309, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire read out a list of organisations that he doubts should be prescribed animal welfare organisations under clause 11. As far as I am aware, most, if not all, of the organisations about which he expressed doubts have charitable status. If they were merely political campaigning organisations, they would not have charitable status. 
 From memory, charitable status is granted to groups engaged in what lawyers call PERC—poverty, education, religion and community benefit. Animal welfare organisations would not be covered under the first three terms, but they would be covered by ''community benefit''. Amendment No. 309 is therefore not a bad amendment because it would clarify the point on which the hon. Gentleman was urging the Minister to be clear.

Alun Michael: On the words ''he thinks'' in clause 11(2), it is the Secretary of State's responsibility to appoint an animal welfare organisation. If he appointed an organisation to be a prescribed welfare body when he had no reasonable grounds for thinking that it was wholly or partly concerned with animal welfare, the appointment would be successfully challenged by, for instance, judicial review. He must, of course, ''reasonably'', which is a term clearly understood in the law, exercise the powers conferred by the Bill.
 That is the point about the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. It is a question not of the percentage of the activities that an organisation undertakes that relate to animal welfare, but of its commitment to animal welfare and its professionalism in producing 
 evidence. I hope that I have satisfied him that the Bill would meet his point. 
 Under clause 11(2), the animal welfare bodies prescribed by the Secretary of State must be wholly or partly concerned with the protection of the welfare of animals, which is appropriate because the role of the prescribed animal welfare bodies is to represent the interests of animal welfare. The argument of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire was effectively to replace an organisation with a clear and precise role with a members club or coalition. 
 Returning to the word ''say'', it is not enough for organisations to say that they are concerned in a bleeding-heart sort of way; they must have a track record of professionalism in relation to animal welfare to be able to fulfil the role. 
 Let us be clear about the intentions behind a prescribed animal welfare body undertaking the role. The Bill clearly sets out four functions and I shall remind the Committee of them. First, animal welfare bodies may make representations on applications for registration. Clause 17(2) provides for that function and clause 25(2) and clause 34 also provide for them to make representations on applications for the renewal or variation of registrations. Secondly, the prescribed animal welfare body may appeal to the tribunal against the granting of registrations as set out in clause 18(2). My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West pointed out that it is for the applicant to appeal when an application is refused. 
 Thirdly, the prescribed animal welfare body may appeal under clause 31(4) to the registrar for hunts to be deregistered. Finally, there is the inspection role. An automatic condition of all registrations, as set out in clauses 27(3) and 28(3), is that an inspector appointed by a prescribed animal welfare body must be permitted on request to inspect the conditions of registration. 
 The lead amendment, which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire moved, would replace the prescribed animal welfare body undertaking those tasks with a committee. To put so much stress on the view that the organisations should be neutral is to miss the point. We do not expect the body to play an impartial role because the registrar and the tribunal are responsible for impartiality. We do not expect the body to play an impartial role because the registrar and the tribunal are responsible for impartiality. The body's role is, where it considers it necessary, to argue that proposed hunting does not satisfy the tests of utility and least suffering, to challenge the evidence if it is less than clear-cut or to say that a proposed activity is preferable to the alternatives. It might also suggest that a particular activity would be acceptable with particular conditions. That is how it will protect the welfare of the wild animals being hunted. It is then a matter for the registrar—the tribunal's obligation is equivalent to this—impartially to weigh the facts presented by both the applicants and the welfare body.

James Gray: The Minister made a useful clarification. He said that the purpose of the animal welfare body is to argue against the evidence, which is the case against
 hunting, or to argue that hunting with dogs is less cruel than an alternative. On some occasions, a body will argue against hunting and on others it will argue in favour. Does he agree that a body must be unbiased because it must be ready to argue one way or the other? If it can be demonstrated that an organisation has a history of bias, it should not be allowed to take part.

Alun Michael: It is not the animal welfare body's job to argue for or against hunting in general. Its responsibility is to look at an application to see whether it satisfies the animal welfare requirements on the prevention of cruelty that are at the heart of the legislation.

John Gummer: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: May I finish answering the hon. Member for North Wiltshire? The body's responsibility is to look at the application from an animal welfare perspective. In an earlier response, I gave examples of where that will be important. The registrar and the tribunal will, of course, be aware of the representative body's view because they are obliged to ensure that they take an objective, well-informed view in coming to their conclusion.

John Gummer: I want very much to follow the Minister. Can he explain, however, how a body, which is wholly committed to the retention of hunting on the basis that it is best for the welfare of the animals, could make specific arguments about a particular circumstance? He cannot explain that because he knows that it would start from a biased position. He wants a body committed to animal welfare to look at a particular circumstance. A body committed either to the principle that hunting is not acceptable in all cases or to the principle that hunting is acceptable in all cases could not constitutionally carry out the job.

Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman has started to appreciate what we are trying to achieve. If an organisation had a constitutional arrangement or set requirements on the people who would undertake its direct work that would make it impossible for them to fulfil the role, it is difficult to see how the Secretary of State could make a designation. It is not appropriate to go further than that. The Secretary of State would have to look at an organisation being considered for designation and be satisfied that it could professionally fulfil the requirements in the same way as suitable people are sought for responsibilities such as guardian ad litem.
 People often express strong views about how children should be treated. The question is whether we can do the job professionally in the way required. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be fair enough to acknowledge that there are many circumstances to be considered. It is important that the Secretary of State, when designating a body to undertake that role, should be clear about the role and be satisfied that the organisation would not be distorting the service that it was providing. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the appointments must be made properly. However, it would be 
 inappropriate for me to make blanket comments about what the Secretary of State should do when considering applications. Had the right hon. Gentleman been answering from this Bench he would say exactly the same.

John Gummer: I genuinely do not wish to push the Minister in a direction that he does not wish to go. However, I want to take up the parallel that he used with the Children Act 1989. Take for example two organisations: one opposes adoption in all cases and the other considers adoption acceptable in all cases. Surely, neither would be given responsibility for adoption. A body appointed to consider adoption would have to be prepared to consider each case on its merits. The Minister must assure us that the body appointed is capable of considering each case on its merits—the merits being the welfare of animals.

Alun Michael: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. My experience of working in child and youth justice tells me that occasionally an organisation may not agree with Government policy or with the legislation but it will be very professional in the case before the court. In fact, his example supports my argument. Of course the Secretary of State must exercise the powers properly and sensibly when making a designation.

Peter Luff: Does the Minister agree that an organisation that says that it does not believe that there is a need to control the fox population nationally or that hunting is ever an effective control or culling measure could fulfil a role under clause 11?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to the question asked by his right hon. Friend and my response to it. It is not appropriate to go down that road. When making a designation, the Secretary of State must consider the organisation concerned and ask whether it can carry out the duties laid on the designated animal welfare organisations professionally. Those duties are the four functions I described. That is a decision for the Secretary of State and I will not second-guess her.
 Amendment No. 309 would narrow the definition of the body that may be a prescribed animal welfare body to one that is a recognised charity. I see no point in that. It is not the charitable nature of the organisation but its competency that matters.

Lembit Öpik: Will the Minister clarify something for me? Is he excluding any of the organisations that hon. Members have mentioned as potentially prescribed organisations? I know that he will not name any organisation, but is he saying that it is his job to exclude those mentioned so far?

Alun Michael: That is an interesting intervention, which seems to have nothing to do with anything that I have said so far. The hon. Gentleman should consult the record to read exactly what I did say. I said that it is for the Secretary of State to make reasonable designations and to ensure that the organisations that are designated can carry out the role. The role is the four functions that I clarified and which are set out clearly in the Bill.

James Gray: The Minister says that he does not understand the purpose of the amendment in requiring all the bodies to be charities. I can clarify that for him. All the animal welfare organisations that I can think of have charitable status, but a variety of campaigning organisations, such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Political Animal Lobby do not, so it would rule them out.

Alun Michael: I shall not comment on individual organisations, but I do not see the relevance of being a registered charity. The question is not whether an organisation is charitable but whether it is an animal welfare body that can fulfil the requirements that I have outlined on several occasions.
 I am sure that, when the hon. Gentleman was a special adviser, he wrote speeches for Conservative Front-Bench Members that included the words, ''Nothing should be read into that statement. I rule nothing in and nothing out. It is for the Secretary of State to designate and to do so reasonably.'' I thought that that was one of the hon. Gentleman's finer speeches. 
 Amendment No. 30 falls on the same grounds, but amendment No. 28 is worse. It would remove the requirement that any prescribed animal welfare body should be wholly or partly concerned with the protection or welfare of animals. That would allow a body to be appointed that had no track record of protecting the welfare of animals. The underlying principle of the Bill is to eliminate any cruelty involved in hunting with dogs, so I see no value in providing in law that the body that is to be given the opportunity to make representations on an application to hunt—specifically from an animal welfare perspective—could have limited concern, or no concern, for animal welfare. Clearly, a body that is involved in animal welfare would be better placed to make the case than one that is not. Therefore, I reject the amendment. 
 The remaining amendments are consequential on those that we have discussed. I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on the points raised in his amendments.

James Gray: The Minister has now exposed his thinking on the clause. The Bill will embody the rights of the Secretary of State, under statutory instrument, to appoint one or more recognised animal welfare organisations. Those organisations would then have the right to appear at the tribunal or before the registrar to argue the case in favour of, or against, the applicant, although there is a strong presumption in the Bill that they would be giving evidence against the applicant.
 If an animal welfare organisation is to fulfil a dispassionate advisory role, which the Minister argues is its purpose, it is important that that organisation can be shown to be dispassionate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) argued, if the organisation can be demonstrated to represent a clear ideological viewpoint on one side or the other of the hunting argument, it is difficult to imagine that it will be able to 
 give dispassionate advice to the registrar or tribunal. Therefore, my inclination would be to rule out the Countryside Alliance. It and many other organisations have said that they believe that hunting with dogs is the best way, so they would always give evidence in favour of hunting with dogs. The League Against Cruel Sports has made its position equally clear on the other side of the argument.

Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: Perhaps I can develop my argument and then I shall give way to the Minister.
 It would seem incorrect to leave the window open either for the League Against Cruel Sports or the Countryside Alliance to be appointed as a recognised animal welfare body. The appointed body should be demonstrably unbiased.

Alun Michael: I am unsure why the hon. Gentleman demonstrates such bias against the Countryside Alliance. I would have expected him to support the appointment of an organisation whose chairman has said, ''If something is cruel, we should not be doing it.'' The whole point is that the Secretary of State must make a reasonable decision and we should not attempt to prejudice the appointments.

James Gray: The chairman of the Countryside Alliance—a man for whom I have the highest respect—will be listening extremely carefully to this debate, or at least reading it tomorrow in Hansard. He and all hunting people would stand by what he said. In my experience, hunting people are the least cruel people in the countryside, but the Minister and I, perhaps, differ on that. None the less, I should be the first to say that if the Countryside Alliance were the prescribed animal welfare body advising the registrar, it is likely that it would be as biased in its evidence as the International Fund for Animal Welfare would be biased on the other side of the argument.
 Both those organisations have clear standpoints from which they are likely to argue. It is difficult to imagine the League Against Cruel Sports arguing passionately in favour of issuing a licence to the Beaufort hunt. It is extremely difficult to imagine the Countryside Alliance arguing passionately against it. There is a theoretical possibility, but it is difficult to imagine. Therefore, there is a presumption that the two organisations that I have mentioned, and some others, would take a particular slant on the evidence in supporting the registrar.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: We have more important matters to discuss this morning, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not do so.
 The Minister has made his position extremely clear. We have challenged him time and again, but he is not prepared to specify what organisations are to be the animal welfare bodies. He has not said that they should come from any particular group, such as charitable or learned organisations, or animal organisations. He is not prepared to identify them, or to rule any organisation out. Because of the loose drafting of the clause, organisations such as the Political Animal Lobby, the International Fund for 
 Animal Welfare, the League Against Cruel Sports and the Countryside Alliance would fall within the terms of the Bill. The same would apply, of course, to the RSPCA. 
 The Minister told the Committee that it would be up to the Secretary of State to decide. The organisations must be professional organisations, but the Secretary of State must be satisfied—or he must think—that they are mainly or wholly concerned with animal welfare. The clause is worded extremely loosely, leaving the door open for a host of organisations to seek recognition from the Secretary of State. 
 As a result of the debate, the Minister has at least made his position on the clause absolutely clear. He has said that he will rule nothing in or out. He thinks that it is as least possible that the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare may become registered animal welfare organisations under the Bill. The amendment has thus served its purpose. 
 Having argued our case that the choice of animal welfare organisations should be restricted, and explained our dislike of the way the Bill is drafted, we have at least teased out a straightforward position on the issue from the Minister. We shall press only the lead amendment in the group, No. 209, to a vote, for the sake of the record. The others are consequential or similar and it would be otiose to vote on them. The system that the Bill would establish is wrong and biased against pro-hunting organisations. The Minister's tacit acceptance that the dubious organisations that I have listed could be registered under the Bill is entirely wrong. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 18.

Question accordingly negatived.

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 320, in
clause 11, page 4, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
 In the last debate, the Minister made perfectly plain his position on the identity of the animal welfare bodies. He has refused to rule anything in or out. He has accepted that—we have constantly raised this issue—the League Against Cruel Sports, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Political Animal Lobby, the RSPCA, and other such 
 campaigning bodies might at least be considered for appointment to the position of recognised animal welfare body. 
 The Bill as it stands, particularly in clauses 18 and 19, and the Minister's comments this morning, make it plain that there is a general presumption that the animal welfare bodies will argue against the applicant. There is a clear presumption in clauses 18 and 19 that the applicant will apply and that the animal welfare body will make representations or give evidence on the other side. However, I accept and welcome the fact that there is a theoretical possibility that the animal welfare body will make representations in favour of the applicant—the Minister has clarified that somewhat this morning. There is none the less under clauses 18 and 19 a strong presumption that things will be the other way round, and the Minister's comments have reconfirmed that impression. 
 The precise nature of those animal welfare bodies adds to the presumption that they will speak against the applicant's best interests. The loose drafting of the Bill, and the presumption under clauses 18 and 19 leave us with the clear impression that the Minister's refusal to rule any organisation in or out under clause 11 will leave the individual open to some criticism. 
 Leaving to one side our belief that such abolitionist organisations might be recognised by the Government under the clause, we come to the most outrageous provision in it and probably the Bill as a whole. Once such bodies have been appointed as recognised animal welfare groups under subsection (3), which the amendment would delete, they are paid grants from the public purse. That is a bizarre and totally unfair notion. In the tribunal, there will be the registrar. On one side will be the applicant, who will be there entirely on his own means, and on the other will be a body that we presume will oppose hunting whose costs will be paid from the public purse. 
 As far as I am aware, no other public body has a similar provision. A nice parallel might be the planning system. For example, developers might use their resources to apply for a large development on our green and pleasant land. The Council for the Protection of Rural England or other countryside organisations might argue against the development, which might be extremely costly. Some public inquiries last a long time. The fees of Queen's counsel are enormous, and the business might become very expensive indeed. Nobody has ever suggested that the CPRE or other organisations should be subsidised out of the public purse. Such organisations raise money by subscriptions and spend enormous amounts arguing their case before a judge, in very much the same way as is proposed in the Bill. However, the animal welfare bodies—we do not know which they are, but we presume that they will be anti-hunting—will be paid grants out of the public purse. There is no precedent for that in English law. 
 The provisions seem to be biased and heavily weighted in favour of the objectors and against the applicants. It is a gross misuse—I put it that strongly—of public money to fund one side of the process, but not the other. How on earth is the farmer 
 or gamekeeper to match such resources financially or in terms of manpower? 
 On one side, the League Against Cruel Sports argues the case for the registrar; on the other side is an individual farmer. That is unbalanced. The LACS will be paid out of the public purse to do that, whereas the individual making an application must bear the whole burden of the costs. I have never heard of such a biased and prejudiced provision in English law. 
 Committee members have failed to lay down what we believe to be the correct principles behind the Bill. We have failed to define cruelty. We have failed to accept the ''hierarchy of cruelty''. That has left it open to the registrar and the tribunal to make difficult subjective judgments when balancing weighty scientific evidence. 
 In other words, it can be presumed that those who can employ the right QCs and who have the financial and manpower muscle to take the case through the courts will be able to master the complicated arguments. It can be presumed that the unfortunate individual, however, who is making an application will be unable to do the same. That is entirely wrong. It breaches one of the fundamental principles of English law. We must ask ourselves why that provision is in the Bill. It is bizarre—it stands out like a sore thumb. 
 Why have the Government suddenly decided to make grants out of the public purse to organisations that object to hunting? After all, IFAW, LACS and PAL do not need much financial help; arguably, the RSPCA does. Those organisations are pretty well off. Why are the Government risking criticism by making it possible for anti-hunting organisations to get funds from the public purse? It is very curious. 
 Why should PAL get public funds? The answer may be in a letter that I received from Mr. Stanley Johnson, a well-known environmentalist, a senior paid adviser to the International Fund for Animal Welfare and a former Member of the European Parliament. Before I start this section of my speech, I should make it clear that I will not accept any interventions during it. However, I will take interventions when I have finished from Committee members I have mentioned. This is what Mr. Stanley Johnson says: 
''Tony Banks benefited from IFAW's largesse for a substantial period during the 1990's in the sense that his research assistant at the House of Commons was paid for by IFAW. ( So by the way was Elliot Morley's . . . .) Moreover, Banks was directly involved in the negotiations which led to the gift of £1 million by the Political Animal Lobby (at that time a wholly owned subsidiary of IFAW) to the Labour Party in exchange for a manifesto commitment on hunting.
Don't let anyone tell you this was not a quid pro quo exchange. It was. I have the clearest recollection of having lunch in the garden of my farm in Somerset and answering the telephone from the United States to be informed that IFAW officials had done a deal with Peter Mandelson and Jonathon Powell whereby IFAW would put up £1 million and the Labour Party would make a manifesto commitment on hunting. I came to the table and announced as much to my horrified guests''
 Those guests included several well-known public figures that I will not list here.

Peter Bradley: Go on.

James Gray: I do not see any point in bringing public figures into the debate. The Minister, by sniggering, obviously thinks that we should. To return to Mr. Johnson's letter:
''Its also worth pointing out that Banks' wife—Sally—has until recently served as a director of the IFAW charitable trust, and his sister, Angela Beveridge is currently the director of PAL, whose founder is listed on their website as none other than Brian Davies, founder of IFAW . . . ''
 This is what is at the heart of this bizarre provision in this dreadful Bill: the Labour party gets £1 million in direct payment—direct causally linked payment—for a manifesto commitment on hunting. The Minister duly delivers the Bill and says: ''I will try to dress it up as a registration/tribunal system, but the truth at the heart of it is a ban on hunting. I have done what I was asked to do, PAL and IFAW. You gave me £1 million and I am now banning hunting, despite 407,000 people on the streets. Thank you for the £1 million, and I am giving you what you asked for. Moreover, I will not only give you what you want, but I will set up in the Bill that you should become a prescribed animal welfare group.'' I asked the Minister repeatedly whether he would rule that out and he said that he would not. 
 Organisations such as IFAW and PAL may, therefore, become prescribed welfare groups. Not only does that mean that they will be able to ensure that no one becomes registered, and they will achieve their lifelong ambition, but they will get paid by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so. The taxpayer is subsidising the RSPCA, LACS, IFAW and PAL—the very organisations that gave the Labour party a disgraceful sleazy bung of £1 million. Not only is the Minister now delivering what those organisations wanted, but through an extraordinary sleazy little clause in the heart of the Bill, he is undertaking to repay them that money. That is a disgrace and a scandal and I have written to the Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards in Public Life to ask them to look into the worrying allegations made by Mr. Johnson. 
 While there is some doubt about whether there is impropriety in the clause, and while the matter is being considered both by the Prime Minister's office—officials in his office are named by Mr. Johnson—and by those public bodies, it would be wrong for the Minister to press for that sleazy clause to remain part of the Bill. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the clause, at least until those public organisations have investigated Mr. Johnson's allegations.

Alun Michael: That was a most disappointing speech. The hon. Gentleman has descended into the gutter this morning, but I do not intend to join him there. To add to that metaphor, being pompous in the gutter only made him look silly, petty and mean. The hon. Gentleman reverted to his previous profession as a spin doctor to justify his synthetic outrage at a simple, modest and reasonable provision in the Bill. He built one expression of prejudice on another, working hard to portray himself as a sort of Mr. Grumpy—an ''outraged of North Wiltshire''—spitting
 out baleful references to individuals and to hon. Members with no word about the public interest or our responsibilities as a Parliament to consider animal welfare issues.
 Clause 11(3) provides for a payment to be made to a prescribed animal welfare body that undertakes functions under the Bill. Those functions involve making representations on applications for registration to hunt, seeking deregulation for alleged breaches of registration, and inspection. I laid them out clearly in an earlier contribution. Amendment No. 320 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to pay the prescribed body for carrying out such functions. 
 The power given to the Secretary of State does not require payments to be made. It is permissive. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to make a payment. Clause 11(3) expressly states that any payments made may be subject to conditions. 
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire, as he chortles in a juvenile manner, is laughing at the sort of words that he has put into speeches on many occasions. He demeans the profession of politics by the way in which he is behaving this morning.

James Gray: What I am laughing at has nothing to do with that. I was laughing at the fact that the Minister started by saying that he was going to rise above it all and not be personal, but so far his speech has been full of personal vitriol and cheap abuse.

George Stevenson: Order. We are getting a little close to that line and perhaps all hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Alun Michael: Absolutely, Mr. Stevenson. I have made clear what I think of the hon. Gentleman's behaviour this morning.
 Payments could be made only for an animal welfare body carrying out its prescribed functions under the Bill and not for aspects of its activities. Some of the slurs that the hon. Gentleman has sought to make stick are mud that will simply slide off.

Michael Foster: Would my right hon. Friend be surprised to hear that while I was walking up to the Committee, I received a telephone call saying that the The Daily Telegraph had heard that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire was going to mention that letter and that issue? Does my right hon. Friend think that the issue has more to do with the hon. Gentleman getting his name in the papers than seriously considering the Bill?

Alun Michael: I am certain that my hon. Friend is right, but I am also certain that most serious journalists, having followed up the press release which the retired spin doctor has probably sent out, will treat his attempt with the contempt it deserves.
 The tribunal system is designed to avoid disparities in the resources available to the parties, which might give rise to an injustice. It is an informed arena in which the tribunal's members can take an active role in drawing out issues that a party may be unable to draw out on their own behalf. The tribunal will be 
 inquisitorial, not adversarial. Its members will be trained to give weight to the relevant arguments, whether they are made by expensive lawyers or unrepresented individuals. 
 The tribunal can also appoint experts to assist it on matters of fact that arise in proceedings and to balance out advantages and disadvantages. That point is worth making to help people understand that we are talking about a proper tribunal system, which will be assisted by the requirements in the Bill. I have already made it absolutely clear, but I shall underline it again, that payments under the Bill will be for a prescribed animal welfare body carrying out its functions, and not for other aspects of its activity or as general assistance to it. An automatic condition of all registered hunting is that an inspector appointed by the prescribed animal welfare body is permitted to accompany the registered individual or group under clauses 27(3) and 28(3). The power of inspection underpins the legislation to prevent abuses, which is in the public interest and should inspire confidence in the effectiveness of the law. 
 Another function is making written representations, which enables both sides of the case to be put before the registrar. Those functions are important and are integral to the Bill's effectiveness. It is reasonable to expect the body carrying out those tasks, which would be a statutory role, to be considered for appointment where it is appropriate. We have made the arrangements for such appointments by putting a permissive power in the Bill and not requiring it. It is in the public interest for those opinions to be clearly representative, and it is right that the public purse can pay to ensure that that happens. Similarly, it is in the public interest to ensure that, where hunting is proposed, all sides of the argument are presented both to the registrar and the tribunal, and it is reasonable for those costs to be met from public funds.

Lembit Öpik: I have two major concerns. First, I do not want to get involved in the financial claims because I do not have the information and it is not relevant for us to discuss the matter in Committee. I am tremendously concerned that the matter raised by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire should be clarified. In the interests of probity, we must be assured that it is not possible to buy bits of the Bill by giving money. I will not take that matter further because it is not my job to do so.

Alun Michael: I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we came up with the Bill after the most careful and objective consideration in which we gave everybody the opportunity to take part. That process had nothing to do with the sort of slur that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has brought into the discussion. He demeans himself, not us.

Lembit Öpik: I will take the matter no further because it will have to be resolved, but probably not in Committee.
 Secondly, there is a natural injustice in the way in which the funding is proposed. The earlier references to clause 18 gave me the impression that the Bill was framed on the assumption that the animal welfare bodies would be the organisations most likely to 
 oppose an application to be allowed to go hunting with dogs. As far as I understand it, those bodies would get financial support to build their cases but applicants would not have the same opportunities. That does not seem right. We are helping the prescribed animal welfare body with funds to back up its case through research. The applicant will possibly have much more meagre financial means than the animal welfare body and it would be unjust if an applicant lost the case due to a lack of resources in comparison with the grant that had been paid out to the animal welfare body.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman extrapolates considerably, perhaps in the light of earlier comments. I do not see the grant as money to build a case, which implies that there are large sums of money to assist in distorting the process. It is normal for legislation to provide a permissive ability for the Secretary of State to pay out funds if they are necessary to ensure that the provisions in a Bill—in this case, the four purposes of the animal welfare organisation—can be fulfilled. I assure him that the tests of reasonableness referred to would constrain the Secretary of State in deciding what payments, if any, should be made.

Lembit Öpik: That raises three questions. First, I am sure that I would not be the only person who has grave concerns about a provision to allow a grant to be paid to a prescribed animal welfare body while there appears to be no provision for it to be paid to an applicant. If what the Minister says is correct, why is there not a permissive clause potentially to allow money to be given to an applicant? Such a clause would not mean that an applicant had to get money, but it would mean that, where it seemed appropriate to the Secretary of State, an applicant could get money to construct their case in the interests of justice. A grant could provide research or information, which it might be possible to provide only through, for example, veterinary advice or topological analysis. I do not see why the Secretary of State should be prevented from providing a grant in the same way as the provision allows for a grant to an animal welfare body.
 Secondly, I assure the Minister that I am not being influenced by the previous debate about £1 million or by what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said. I have reached that conclusion because, if I were the Secretary of State, I would not want to be in a position where I was permitted only to give a grant to one side of a case. It should not be too difficult for any of us to think of an example in which the other side of a case might equally be worthy of financial support.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has a serious point and I can see what he is getting at. His mistake is to look at the issue as though there were two sides to the argument, as in a dispute over a piece of property or in a civil case in which a court has to adjudicate between two individuals, both of whom have an interest. In that situation, it is, of course, clear that there should be fairness and balance.
 We are, however, talking about an application from an interested party who wants it to be approved. The Bill will ensure that the court has the information to 
 enable it to make a judgment on the animal welfare considerations of the application before it. The grant has nothing to do with two sides: it is about ensuring that an application is looked at from an animal welfare perspective. Payments would be made when one could ensure that there would not be a gap in the information available to the court only by ensuring that that public interest issue was dealt with, which is why the permissive arrangement to pay is in the Bill. I hope that I have explained to the hon. Gentleman why I am not persuaded by his argument.

Lembit Öpik: What I am about to say is predicated on the fact that I want this Bill to work. Hon. Members know that as a member of the Middle Way Group I have wanted regulation to work. My concerns are sincerely intended to make this part of the Bill consistent with how natural justice can be carried out. The reason that I am more concerned now than when I came in at five to 9 this morning is that the spirit of the discussion gives me the impression that the prescribed animal welfare body is likely to be appointed on the assumption that it opposes hunting with dogs.
 I asked the Minister about this before and he tried to reassure me that that might not necessarily be the case. I will discuss clause 18 later, but if we import where it says: 
''Where the registrar grants an application under section 13 or 14 a prescribed animal welfare body may appeal to the Tribunal''
 to our discussion, it is reasonable to deduce that the prescribed animal welfare body may receive a grant to provide information to the tribunal on the basis of opposing the application. That is not unreasonable, but if I am correct, surely it would not be a great step further to make the same allowance for the applicant. As the Secretary of State may imagine, applicants might not have much money and have to put their case by themselves. To ensure that all the facts are considered they deserve a little support. 
 I will give a brief example to highlight the point, because it is important. A farmer in my area of Montgomeryshire, which is the area I know best, makes an application to go hunting with dogs—let us call him David Jones, who is a real person who goes hunting—because he thinks that the way to control foxes in his area is by killing them with dogs, as I am sure he does. However, he does not have much money to back up the application. He does not write it all that effectively because he is not a lawyer; he works in agriculture. The prescribed animal welfare body sees the application and says: ''Since we are opposed to hunting with dogs we will construct an opposition case to ensure that the application is unsuccessful''. The Secretary of State has decided that the prescribed animal welfare body deserves a grant to construct its case effectively. So, it receives the money and puts a slick, well-argued case to the tribunal. David Jones is there on his own with his case, with which he has done the best he can, but he has not had financial support to put it together. It would not be a surprise if David Jones lost his application because he was not in a position to invest the same degree of time and money in preparing his case. 
 To put it another way, David Jones could lose, not because he should but because he did not have the 
 resources to win. That is the issue here. I hear the Minister, but even if he is right and it is not his intention to create this injustice, I do not see how the clause would be compromised by having a fourth subsection stating: 
''The Secretary of State may make a payment by way of grant, which may be subject to conditions, to the applicant''.
 All that that would mean is that there would be balance, but without that, subsection (3) on its own mitigates towards a potential injustice. It mitigates towards a situation where someone loses simply because they cannot afford to put together a case to win. 
 I am sympathetic to amendment No. 320 because it rebalances matters. I am coming at the issue from the other side to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire who says that the animal welfare body should not receive a grant. I am agnostic about whether it should receive a grant, but on balance, if subsection (3) is allowed, there should be reciprocal provision for the applicant. In the absence of such provision, it seems potentially unjust to give a prescribed animal welfare body the money, given that the applicant could reasonably walk out of the tribunal and say that he lost the case because he did not have the money to compete with a prescribed animal welfare body that received public funding to put together its case.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point and I support his argument that if the animal welfare organisations are given the money, applicants must be given it too. Given that there may be thousands of applicants, however, does he agree that that would place an enormous burden on the public purse simply in the administration of the Bill? It is interesting that the Minister has so far given us no indication of how much it will cost.

Lembit Öpik: Indeed. There is a financial implication. No one should pretend that the Bill will lead to a saving for the state; I am almost sure that it will lead to a cost. All the same, I suppose that I place my concern about justice above my concern about the public purse. I used the example of David Jones. He would make an effective case, because he is a professional and would make great efforts to be clear and persuasive. However, many other people who want to go hunting because they regard it as a pest control matter or something else may not be able to make their case so effectively.
 In certain circumstances, it may be justifiable to give money to prescribed animal welfare bodies by way of the discretionary grant. It may be right, because the body may have important facts that would not be put forward effectively without it. It is fair to assume that that body will not necessarily be wealthy. It is unlikely that it will not be, but it is possible. In any event, I am certain that there will be many applicants who do not have the financial support, the experience of tribunals or the ability to take time away from their main work to put their cases together. 
 On balance, I am inclined to say that the ideal would be to have a fourth subsection that provided for 
 grants to applicants. However, as that is not in the Bill, and we face the options of an injustice as the Bill stands or a rebalancing by leaving out subsection (3), I support amendment No. 320. That is not to disrespect the Minister's arguments. Even if this means that we have to speak on this matter again, I hope that he can convince me that I have missed something and my argument is inconsistent, or that he will revisit the matter on Report. If he can assure me that he will revisit on Report the benefits of providing a grant to applicants, I might be persuaded to change my position on the amendment.

Rob Marris: I hope that I can, to some extent, cut this Gordian knot. The tribunal system in England and Wales, and, I believe, in Scotland, traditionally does not award costs other than in exceptional cases. An applicant to a tribunal has to meet their costs, as does the respondent. However, the registrar and tribunal systems in the Bill are slightly different from the traditional way of doing things. I think, and hope, that it is the way in which the intersection between tribunal and registrar is set out in the Bill that has led to the confusion among hon. Members.
 We are talking about the role of prescribed animal welfare bodies, and I stress that the Bill uses the plural. That is particularly relevant when we consider the appeal system, but also when we consider the registrar's determination. Those at registrar level are in the nature of expert witnesses. A registrar will invite representations under clause 17(2)(a) and consider them under clause 17(2)(b). The Bill states that on receipt of an application the registrar shall 
''consider any written representations made by any of those bodies''—
 note the plural— 
''within that period.''
 It is entirely proper that a body seeking expert evidence should pay for it. 
 Unlike Opposition Members, I do not necessarily think that all animal welfare organisations prescribed by the Bill will be cut-and-dried anti-hunting. If they were, their representations to a registrar or a tribunal would be almost useless. It is an insult to those who are likely to be registrars, to chair a tribunal or to be wing members to suggest that they cannot give due weight to evidence and take into account where it comes from. It would be equally insulting to magistrates, existing tribunal chairs and wing members in social security appeal or employment tribunals. It would not help anyone to specify a cut-and-dried organisation because its opinions are likely to be severely discounted by the registrar. 
 Confusion may arise in clause 18(2), which states that 
''a prescribed animal welfare body may appeal to the Tribunal''.
 I seek the Minister's clarification. It would be strange, under the tribunal system, that a prescribed animal welfare body that chose to lodge an appeal under clause 18(2) had the costs and expenses of lodging and pursuing an appeal met under a grant provided by the Secretary of State in clause 11(3). My understanding is 
 that, under clause 11(3), grants are intended to meet the costs and expenses of prescribed animal welfare bodies who are, in the nature of expert witnesses, providing assistance to a registrar in making his or her decision, but that grants would not be made available under clause 11(3) to prescribed animal welfare bodies who were seeking to pursue an appeal under clause 18(2). I seek the Minister's clarification; is my understanding correct?

Gregory Barker: In speaking to the amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire revealed a highly disturbing and almost unparalleled example of cash for policy. This is not the first time—

George Stevenson: Order. I should comment on this interesting and important debate, which refers to the use of public money. When nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out, a great difficulty is thrown on the Chair in trying to establish the boundaries of the debate. I think we have probably reached that boundary. It is right and proper for hon. Members to talk about why the money may be used, who may use it and what it may be used for, and I hope that we can move on to those issues.

Gregory Barker: This is not just about cash for policy, but it is unprecedented that the donor of £1 million to the Labour party, through the mechanism of the Bill, is being offered cashback, because there is a potential for hundreds if not thousands of applications—

Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Is the hon. Gentleman in order when he says things that are untrue and deliberately calculated—

George Stevenson: Order. That is a fair point. I attempted a few moments ago to guide the Committee in the way that I hoped the debate would go. There is no evidence in the Bill or the amendment that indicates that any particular individual will benefit financially from it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.

Gregory Barker: Indeed. However, it is clear from the Bill that certain prescribed organisations will receive money from the public purse and that is a matter of record. Would the Minister care to disagree?

George Stevenson: Order. I have listened carefully to the debate. The Conservative Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, tried to get the Minister to identify what may be prescribed. What the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle claims is not in this morning's record. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am trying to be helpful.

Gregory Barker: I am grateful for your help and guidance, Mr. Stevenson. However, an organisation that receives a grant could receive tens, hundreds or even thousands of individual payments, given that the extraordinary labyrinth of bureaucracy that will be established under the guise of a regulation regime could allow hundreds of individual payments. It would not take a great deal for those payments to add up to well in excess of the £1 million given by IFAW to the Labour party. We have an extraordinary—

Alun Michael: Speech.

Gregory Barker: Yes, it is a speech. I would be grateful if the Minister did not heckle; it is clearly uncomfortable listening for him.

Alun Michael: It is very nasty stuff.

Gregory Barker: The Minister is absolutely right. If what I am saying is proved, it is corrupting the heart of the British constitution.

George Stevenson: Order. I have tried to guide and to help, but I am not prepared to put up with any more of this. It is perfectly right that when nothing is ruled in or out, the boundaries of the debate will be wider than normal. I accept that when public money is involved, it is right and proper to debate where it is going and what it may be used for. However, impugning personal motives and making allegations that may or may not be correct at this stage will not help the debate.

Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I might be able to assist on one point. You referred properly to words that I used earlier about nothing being ruled in or out. However, the purposes in the Bill are ruled in, but inappropriate payments that are not designed for the fulfilment of the narrow objective of looking at any application from the animal perspective, which is clearly in the Bill, would be ruled out.

George Stevenson: That is a helpful intervention for me, and that is what I meant by trying to define the parameters of this important debate. I wish now to do that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that.

Gregory Barker: I am grateful to you, Mr. Stevenson. I have made the points that I wanted to make, and they will be expanded on. I am sure that if they will not be heard in this Committee, they will certainly be heard outside, because they demand an answer. I hope that the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Electoral Commission will consider the allegations seriously. Given that 184 of the 194 submissions that were made to the Portcullis house hearings, over which the Minister presided, were in favour of hunting, perhaps we will get an answer about why we have ended up with this extraordinary piece of legislation. The reason for the £1 million gift becomes all too evident.

Michael Foster: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want the record to be correct. It is my understanding that IFAW did not make a donation to the Labour party. Will he tell the Committee in what year that donation was supposedly made and whether it is relevant to today's debate? It is the hon. Gentleman who is making the connection between the two.

George Stevenson: Order. I think that this is the fourth time that I have been on my feet about this point, and Committee members will know that I do not like to do that. I have made my comments about the parameters of the debate. I can see no indication in the amendment or the clause that any particular organisation will get any particular amount of public money. Hon. Members are entitled to question the Government about what types of organisations may
 receive money and why the clause is included, but I see no use in the Committee in speculating on a particular organisation as if it is already in receipt of a grant. I will not allow that debate to continue. The hon. Gentleman may want to finish his comments.

Gregory Barker: I will indeed finish my comments. It is not just the issue of mega political donations to secure policy; the interests of individual applicants will be severely prejudiced. They will not have the resources or the armoury that is at the disposal of the big international organisations, which under the Bill will receive yet more taxpayers' money from the Government. It is a profoundly illiberal, biased and unjust move simply to favour one side of the argument. It runs contrary to all the principles of justice. I hope that it will not prevail.

Peter Luff: This provision was one of the few surprises when the Government made their announcement about the way in which hunting with hounds would be handled. It therefore deserves particularly careful scrutiny. On the whole the Bill was well trailed. When it was eventually published it contained few such surprises. The matter also deserves to be looked at carefully because the provisions under the clause will all be enacted by regulation. I am not entirely sure that this provision is covered by regulations. It seems to give an entirely arbitrary discretion to the Secretary of State to make payments not covered by the regulations referred to in subsection (1). That is a matter of considerable concern.
 Committees should always be careful about giving powers to Secretaries of State under regulations, because regulations are not amendable when they, in turn, come for further consideration by the House. We must be particularly careful about such a broad-brush approach in any event. If I am correct, we need to be even more careful again in relation to subsection (3) because I do not think that the House will have a chance to debate the matter again. This is our only opportunity to do so and we will have signed a blank cheque if we do not delete subsection (3). 
 The Minister must make a much more careful case for subsection (3). He has not been as convincing as he often can be; perhaps he has not understood the seriousness of the matter. Perhaps because of the entirely legitimate concerns that were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire when he opened the debate, the Minister was sidetracked into party political mode, rather than his normal objective ministerial mode. I invite him to return to that objective ministerial mode and to think about what these regulations do. 
 My colleague the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has made the case for balance and so I will not go over that argument again; it would be tedious repetition. I simply say that I associate myself entirely with every word he said. There is a worrying lack of balance in these provisions for precisely the reasons he described. The Minister said that such provisions were normal. I think that he was referring to the regulation-making provisions of the clause, not 
 its financial provisions. Is there any precedent for this kind of money being paid as a blank cheque by the Secretary of State to a prescribed body? 
 My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire talked about the unlikelihood of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister making a payment to the Council for the Protection of Rural England during a planning inquiry. Normally, if people do not like something that is happening, they must put up with it or make their own case at their own costs. An objection to a planning committee about a planning application does not attract a grant from anyone and nor should it. This is important because we do not know how much money is involved. The Minister has given us no indication of the kind of costs that he foresees falling to the Exchequer as a result of the clause. 
 Thousands of applications will be made under the Bill. That is not in doubt. They will come from groups and individuals. Just look at the 300 or so registered hunts that exist at present in England and Wales. How much money does he expect the clause to cost in considering those applications alone? It would not be unreasonable to expect costs to the order of £10,000. That does not go very far these days to cover the costs of calling expert witnesses, obtaining information, travel and all the rest. A cost of £3 million would fall on the Exchequer if each and every one of those applications were contested by one of the prescribed animal welfare bodies and the Secretary of State decided to give that body money. We are talking about a very considerable sum of money. 
 The fact that the Minister has ruled nothing in and nothing out is immensely significant. If the Minister had said during the previous debate that he was talking about organisations such as the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare and the Animal Health Trust, which has not featured so far in the debate, our concerns would have been significantly reduced because those are genuinely reputable bodies that are free from bias and take an objective view. He has not said that. 
 By implication, I draw the conclusion that he is considering organisations such as the RSPCA, IFAW, PAL and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which are all explicitly and totally opposed to hunting on principle. It is wrong to give money to those organisations, which, with the exception of the LACS, are already richly endowed, despite their small memberships. I should say that the RSPCA has a small membership; some of the other organisations, such as IFAW and PETA, have bigger, international memberships. It is wrong to give them money when they already have substantial funds at their disposal. 
 As my colleague, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire said, the organisations that will make the applications typically do not have rich endowments behind them. There are currently very few rich hunts in the country; most survive from hand to mouth and are engaged in desperate fundraising activities. The supporters clubs are crucial to the 
 survival of many hunts and raise money to keep them going. Hunts are typically poor organisations. The lack of balance is all the more important when one thinks of the very rich organisations that hunts will be up against. 
 What exactly are the organisations being asked to do? If the Minister is not ruling out the bodies that I have just named, he is paying for them to continue their campaigning activity. It is true that that is on a piecemeal, one-by-one basis, but that is still what the Minister is doing. If he just wants expert witnesses to be available to the registrar and the tribunal, I have no problem with that. That is a good idea, but let us give the registrar and the tribunal the power to pay for the expert witnesses that they believe are necessary to contest a particular decision. They will not necessarily need animal welfare evidence; they may need evidence about the topography of a particular landscape or wildlife management expertise. They particularly do not need animal welfare expertise from bodies that have already said that hunting is always wrong. That cannot be an expert witness; that must be a prejudiced witness, who should not be able to receive money under the clause. 
 I agree in particular with what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said in his characteristically thoughtful remarks. We do not always see eye to eye, but I pay tribute to him for the objectivity of what he says. It would be utterly outrageous if the grant-making power, which appears to apply to the whole of this area of the Bill and every power in it, were available in relation to mounting appeals. If the registrar has heard a case properly, why should money for mounting an appeal be made available to what may, if the Minister chooses the wrong bodies, be highly prejudiced organisations? 
 This is a very worrying provision. I think that so widely drawn a provision is without precedent in English and Welsh law; I should be grateful if the Minister found such a precedent. The fact that this is the one provision that came as a surprise to everyone and provoked quite wide outrage in the media leads us to wonder about the Government's motives for including it in the Bill.

Ian Cawsey: There are some parallels with the debate that we had on Thursday afternoon about who could be the registrar and what links they should be allowed to have with political parties and campaigning. I made the point that transparency is the key issue. It is important that people know which organisations are involved, what they represent and whether there are any links to political parties. It is not just about who does the job; it is about what people know about an organisation. They should be prescribed because of that.
 For instance, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire mentioned PAL earlier in the debate and rightly pointed out that it has made a large donation to the Labour party. In his view, it should therefore be ruled out of any further contact. That argument was mitigated by his not mentioning that PAL has made donations to the Conservative party and to the Liberal Democrat party; if it is nothing else, that is at least a balanced approach. The Labour party has had a policy 
 on a free vote on hunting with dogs for a very long time. The only reason why it has taken until now is our singularly unimpressive record in getting elected.

Lembit Öpik: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I hate making points of order, but on balance is it not better that none of us should talk about that matter?

George Stevenson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to repeat what I said earlier because I try to stamp down on repetition and tediousness.

Ian Cawsey: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson. My point is that there is a balance to be struck; people in glass houses should not throw stones. It is more important that people should understand the transparency of the issue. The matter is now on the record because the Government have introduced legislation to ensure that donations to political parties can be seen by anyone. That did not seem to be the case, but it is where we are now.

Adrian Flook: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. We seem to be going down the same road again.

George Stevenson: Yes. I caution the hon. Gentleman to help me out by remembering what I said earlier.

Ian Cawsey: Of course; I hear what you say, Mr. Stevenson. Having seen Opposition Members' reactions when they made their allegation, it is interesting to see their defensiveness when the counterpoint is put to the Committee. Nevertheless, my point is on the record, which is important.
 When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will take up the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. If he is saying to the Committee that we are asking animal welfare bodies to do a necessary job and it is therefore reasonable to have a permissive power to allow them some funding, I do not necessarily have a problem. Given that it is obvious that such payments should be paid, however, does the power have to be in the Bill? In those circumstances, could the Department not make such payments? I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to those points while bearing in mind that the transparency of the people who undertake such work is key. 
 It struck me that what we heard this morning, which had allegedly been trailed in The Daily Telegraph, concerned Stanley Johnson, who is better known as the father of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson).

George Stevenson: Order. I have had to intervene on five occasions, which would test the patience of anyone in the Chair. I try to be a patient fellow, but will the hon. Gentleman please get back to the amendment and the clause?

Ian Cawsey: I shall simply finish on this point, Mr. Stevenson. The Minister needs to respond to the question of why the power has to be in the Bill. He also needs to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West's questions. If he can do that, we will be able to support him because we would know why the power had to be in the Bill and why the Department could not simply make payments.

Alun Michael: It is always very difficult when one does not have a specific intention to use a permissive power in a particular way or to give a particular type of grant or payment to head off the type of speculation that we have heard during this morning's discussion. This is the best way in which I can put it; the type of tribunal in the Bill does not concern an argument between two sides. It is not a contest between two people who are arguing over a piece of property and it does not concern an individual being prosecuted with a prosecution and a defence ranged against each other. It is a situation in which the registrar and tribunal have to consider, as objectively as is humanly possible and
 in accordance with the high standards of our tribunal system, an application and decide whether registration should be affected.
 In making that decision, there is not another side to the argument, but it is in the public interest that the process should take due account— 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.